Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/7/2025 has been received; Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 13, 16,18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29-31, 33 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29-31 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morales (US 2018/0119318) in view of Dandapure (US 2023/0243074).
Regarding Claim 1, Morales discloses a woven fabric (Figures 1-4) comprising a face side and a back side (Figure 1-4), said woven fabric comprising: warp yarns interwoven with weft yarns (12 & 14, Figures 2 & 3); the warp yarns including; a warp combination yarn comprising a bi-component core yarn (Para. 17-19); the weft yarns including a first weft multifilament yarn (Para. 24, “various weft yarns can be used”) and a second weft multifilament yarn (Para. 24, “various weft yarns can be used”) comprising regenerated cellulosic filaments or synthetic polymer filaments (Para. 24-25, 27); wherein the woven fabric includes weft insertions of the first weft yarn and weft insertions of the second weft yarn (Para. 24), the weft insertions of the second weft yarn form a plurality of weft yarn floats every second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth weft insertion (Figures 2-4); wherein a majority of the weft yarn floats are on the back side of the woven fabric (Figures 2-4); wherein the face side of the woven fabric is configured to face away from a wearer and the back side of the woven fabric is configured to be closer to the wearer (the woven fabric is capable of being used on a wearer as claimed). Morales does not specifically disclose the warp yarns including; a warp combination yarn comprising a bi-component core yarn and a texturized multifilament feed yarn texturized with or twisted with the bi-component core yarn. However, Dandapure discloses the warp yarns including; a warp combination yarn comprising a bi-component core yarn and a texturized multifilament feed yarn texturized with or twisted with the bi-component core yarn (65-74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date to include a warp yarn as taught by Dandapure, to the warp of Morales, in order to yarns which can pull moisture out. The combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose a denier per filament of the second weft multifilament yarn is greater than a denier per filament of the warp combination yarn. However, Dandapure discloses a range of denier which can be used (Para. 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of denier in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the woven fabric performance, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the denier involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore the combination of Morales and Dandapure disclose the weft yarns floats on the back side of the woven fabric act to remove moisture from the back side of the woven fabric and our of the face side of the woven fabric (Morales, Figures 2-4 & Dandapure, Para. 50-52)
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Morales and Dandapure disclose a polymer of bi-component core yarn of the warp combination yarn comprises a polyester, a polyacrylic, a Polytrimethylene terephthalate, a nylon, a polypropylene, an acrylic or any blend combination thereof (Morales, Para. 17-19 & 24 & Dandapure, Para. 65-74).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Morales and Dandapure disclose the bi-component polymer yarn comprises a polyester (Para. 17-19 & 24 & Dandapure, Para. 65-74). The combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose a recycled polyester. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the yarn as claimed, since it is well within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using a recycled polyester would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose a polymer of the bi-component core yarn of the warp combination yarn comprises about 10-80% of the bio polymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the yarn as claimed, since it is well within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using a polymer of the bi-component core yarn of the warp combination yarn comprises about 10-80% of the bio polymer would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Morales and Dandapure disclose the first weft multifilament yarn is the same yarn as the texturized multifilament feed yarn of the warp combination yarn (Morales, Para. 17-19 & 24 & Dandapure, Para. 65-74).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Morales and Dandapure disclose the texturized multifilament yarn is a bi component yarn Morales, Para. 17-19 & 24 & Dandapure, Para. 65-74).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose the texturized multifilament feed yarn of the warp yarn combination yarn comprises a blend of bio polymer with a synthetic polymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the yarn as claimed, since it is well within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using a blend of bio polymer with a synthetic polymer would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose the warp combination yarn has a denier per filament is in a range of 0.35 - 0.99Denier/Filament. However, Dandapure discloses a range of denier which can be used (Para. 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of denier per filament in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the woven fabric performance, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the denier per filament involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose the bi-component core yarn of the warp combination yarn is an 85 denier/106 filament bi-component polyester. However, Dandapure discloses a range of denier which can be used (Para. 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of denier per filament in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the woven fabric performance, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the denier per filament involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Morales does not specifically disclose the woven fabric comprises insertions of the second weft multifilament yarn in every other insertion. Morales discloses the use of multiple weft yarns. (Para. 24, “various weft yarns can be used”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different woven patterns in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the woven fabric performance, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the pattern involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 18 & 19, Morales does not specifically discloses wherein 60 % or 90% of the plurality of weft yarn floats are on the back side of the woven fabric and 40 % or 10 % of the plurality of weft yarn floats are on the face side of the woven fabric. However, the moisture regain yarn appears to cover most of the back in Figure 4 of Morales. Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of percentages for back yarn to front yarn in order to achieve an optimal configuration of aesthetics, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the coverage involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Morales and Dandapure discloses the warp combination yarn is dyed or wherein the woven fabric is dyed (Morales, Para. 19).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose the denier per filament of the second weft yarn ranches from 0.5 to 2.5. However, Dandapure discloses a range of denier which can be used (Para. 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of denier per filament in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the woven fabric performance, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the denier per filament involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically disclose the second weft yarn is the multifilament yarn including the nylon filaments and has a yarn size ranging from 20 denier to 120 denier. However, Dandapure discloses a range of denier which can be used (Para. 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of denier per filament in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the woven fabric performance, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the denier per filament involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 29-31, the combination of Morales and Dandapure do not specifically discloses the texturized multifilament feed yarn is a 50D/34F bicomponent yarn or the bicomponent core yarn is a recycled polyester 30D/72F bi-component drawn textured yarn or the second weft yarn is the multifilament yarn including the nylon filaments and is a 100 denier/72 filament nylon yarn with a denier per filament of about 1.4. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the yarn as claimed, since it is well within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using a texturized multifilament feed yarn is a 50D/34F bicomponent yarn or the bicomponent core yarn is a recycled polyester 30D/72F bi-component drawn textured yarn or the second weft yarn is the multifilament yarn including the nylon filaments and is a 100 denier/72 filament nylon yarn with a denier per filament of about 1.4 would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination Morales and Dandapure disclose an article of apparel comprising the woven fabric of claim 1 (Morales, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732